Zimmerman Says He Doesn't Regret Actions in Shooting

Originally posted by jheated5
Well maybe because Zim had a broken nose and the back of his head was busted, while Martin only had bruises on his knuckles... These are facts not
opinion, how do I know this works? Because 2+2=4

Let's pretend I am Trayvon Martin for a moment.
Thanks to SYG, if Zimmerman came up, took out his gun, grabbed my hoodie, and said anything that was not very nice, I am about to start beating his
ass.
Is my hoodie going to show wounds in the autopsy? Probably not.

Since you bring it up...exactly what were the bruises on Trayvon's hands?
One bruise on one knuckle.
Tell me how he got it.

Thug could walk away but instead he attacks man with gun. Thug beats man up and smashes his head in the pavement. Thug gets shot by man who has a
right to defend himself. Thug gets 'justice'.

Zimmerman having to chase this kid down is evidence that Martin tried to get away from him. Martin isn't at fault here Zimmerman is he chased this
kid down for no reason and confronted him. Zimmerman pulled the gun because he couldn't take a butt whipping like a man.

I know SYG does not apply to this case, unless you can't defend your self from being killed with out it.
We don't have that law here in CT and, yet we can still defend our selfs.

So i'm asking what the FL law is on self defense/ SYG why do so many people think that the "evil" SYG law has anything to do with this case?

It's sad when a criminal can rob a guy's house and the guy can't shoot the criminal unless he finds the guy hiding, but the same guy can shoot that
criminal if he tries to bash his head in. CT law is funny like that, you have to be in danger. So i ask how does SYG work for Zimmerman, when its a
case of self defense?

I beleived from the start that Zimmerman had an agenda and is trying eveything he can to hide it. It was said that his family talked often about
hating black people and the comments were more then damaging. I know it sounds strange but the minute I saw him I had a gut instinct about this man
and it was not good or from God!

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such
conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in
the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using
defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly
entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will
from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring
or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such
as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of
no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of,
the person against whom the defensive force is used; or

(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an
unlawful activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a
dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any
applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement
officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to
retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing
so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or
permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she
has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the
assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to
withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Originally posted by jheated5
What kind of idiot tries to confront a guy and beat him up if he knows he has a gun???

I know. Not a very believable story, is it? And considering the only witness to this account has changed his story at least 3 times now, it's highly
unlikely that ANY of the versions we've heard from him are true. Because only an idiot would confront a guy and try to beat him up if he knew he had
a gun...

The thing that supports it though.....the phone recording that police counted 14 separate screams on. Evidence shows only one was taking physical
injury while that screaming was going on...so it's not rocket science to figure Zimmerman was screaming and probably figuring he was about to die.

I don't know why he wouldn't have used his weapon sooner, but then, he should have broken off entirely much sooner. This guy is no contender for
teaching classes in good judgement or long term thinking.

I'm also looking forward to the trial. I got different things out of the interview, but he did hurt himself. We'll see when everyone's under Oath
though and get's just one shot for a story to tell. Lets see how they all add up in the end. If he really did, as someone suggested, PLAN this (I
don't see that) and the trial shows it? Heck, I'd vote 1st degree murder. Why under charge it if that was the actual thing happening? The trial will
tell.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.